Iris Robinson and Homosexuality.

While it was once blasphemous to speak ill against The Saviour, Christian principles or The Bible, such is not now the case. But , if like Committed Christian and leading politician Mrs Iris Robinson, you speak against homosexuality terming it as God’s Word terms it-an Abomination-you are in trouble. For you will be attacked by the media,so called Protestant ministers, “great and the good ” etc.

May we all support Iris in our prayers. And That The Lord will raise many more in Ulster to stand against the filth of sodomy.

Like this:

Related

Responses

We live in an age when mocking Christians is appropriate as soemhow we deserve it, but no one is allowd to even question the moral rightness of Homosexuality.

Its about time soemone spoke up agaisnt it, and we need proper freee speech, not the joke of free speech which allows all things Christian to be mocked, while protectign Homosexuality aaiant all critisism.

I find it hilarious that people attack the qualities of love, affection and friendship between two people of the same gender, when their entire religion is supposed to hinge on those qualities and others. A moral rightness? How can loving and caring for another human being, regardless of gender, be immoral? That’s intellectual nonsense and it makes a mockery of religion.

It’s about time someone spoke up against what exactly? That two men and two women can engage in mutually nurturing relationships which don’t damage another soul in the world any more than heterosexual ones do? Do you think this stuff through or…just believe it?

Cosmodaddy, of coruse I think things through, thats why I beleive as I do, and resent the implication you make that I mindleslsy fllow along withotu thinking. THis is particulalry true given the above comment by you which is, flalty, a lie.

No one objects to two peopel fo the same gender lovign each other. Howevr, Homosexuality is not, nor has it ever been, about Love. Even if you accept the lie that Homosexual couples are the same as Heterosexual ones, even you have ot admit that not all sex with heterosexuals is based aroudn love.

That said, not all gay sex is either, and I’d venture to say none of it is.

Homosexuality is acutlaly damaging, to body and soul. It harms those who engage in it, as can be clealry shown by medical science. Even removign the claim of Homophobia an dlooking only at cases where the Homoseuxal is fully accepte dby his community, the Homosexual is at a much higher risk of Suicide. Depression and anxiety disorders are also very common.

The avgerage Homosexual lifespan is also about 20-40 years shorter than a Heterosexual.

I’m afraid that those figures alone prevent me form seeing it as a healthy and natural lifestyle, as oes the fact that our bodies are designed for Heterosexual unions, not Homoexual ones. ( Hence why its damaging.)

Not that it matters, given that you won’t listebn to me, and given the amount of hatefulness on your own blog, which I did read soem f recently. You shoudln’t lecture me about love, lad, if all you can do is preah hatred agaisnt those who disagree.

@ Zarove for someone who claims to be a psychology student, you make an alarmingly ill informed argument based on wilful misinterpretation.

the Homosexual is at a much higher risk of Suicide. Depression and anxiety disorders are also very common.

If that should be true, you’re suggesting that there is an inherent physiological/psychological flaw in people who engage in gay sex/relationships which simply isn’t borne out by the facts. Depression, anxiety and suicide rates for people self-identifying or identified as gay have always been disproportionately higher for numerous sociological reasons. Not conforming to intolerant norms set by intolerant people tends to be at the top of the list. Think it through.

Even if you accept the lie that Homosexual couples are the same as Heterosexual ones, even you have ot admit that not all sex with heterosexuals is based aroudn love.

I do. This doesn’t advance your argument however. You haven’t shown in any way how it’s somehow damaging to body and soul. I speak as a gay man who knows and has known many gay people. Not a single person has been damaged body or soul through their being gay. Self hatred comes self-reflection at other people’s attitudes, STI infection happens to both sexual orientations, and I must confess I know and am friends with many gay couples who have been madly in love with one another for many years. I’m afraid you’re the one who is lying about the absence of love. The facts really do speak for themselves if you’re prepared to accept them.

That said, not all gay sex is either, and I’d venture to say none of it is.

How on earth would you know that? Have you had a bad same-sex experience which makes you so hateful that you would say something so blatantly ridiculous?

@ the Watchmen – We are simply re-echoing how God has spoken of the vile sin of sodomy.It is not what we think but what God says.

Nonsense. You read it in a book and it suited attitudes and feelings you might already have had. Extend your argument to the legions of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex however and you have to start hating random straight people as well. It must be difficult for you.

Cosmodaddy, your statement, again, that I don’t think things through is, again, evidence only of the lack of love you express in your writings here. I understand that you disagree with me, but acting as if I am a mindless sop who doesn’t think things through is insulting to me, and not really valid since I have.

Also, if you’d bother to pay attention to what I’ve said, even if you think I am ill informed, you’d realise I addressed the claim about Homophobia causing the suicide risks. It doesn’t.

Please pay attention to the following paragraph. Read it.

Even if the Homosexual is fully accepted by his community, and doesn’t encounter hostility or even criticism for his lifestyle, even IF he NEVER encounters the evil dread Homophobic bigot like me who says what he does its wrong and wins universal approval of his Actions, as is seen in some European communities, such as in some in Sweden, he is STILL at a greater risk for Suicide, depression, and anxiety disorders. This is Irrespective of the claim of not conforming to social norms and is not the result of intolerance.

You, sir, are simply being dishonest if you saddle the mental health problems noted in Homosexuals on intolerance. The intolerant norms set by intolerant people do not exist in communities that accept Homosexuality as natural, normal, and healthy and yet we still see the same patterns of depression, anxiety, and suicide.

So no, its not intolerance, and your lying if you say it is.

Much like you lie if you want to depict this as Christians acting as Hypocrites, by saying they oppose the love of two persons who happen to be of the same Gender, when in all reality what is opposed is sexual relationships between members of the same sex, not love.

You can continue to repeat these tired old cobblers if you like, but I’ve heard them all before.

Homosexuality is not about love, and Christians aren’t Hypocrites for opposing it, nor is intolerance the reason for the mental health crisis’s that are frequent in Homosexuals.

As for saying I refuse to accept the facts, another end of the whole claim that I don’t think things through and just believe things, the facts remain. Even though Heterosexuals also contract STD’s, the truth is that Homosexuals are at a significantly higher risk for STD’s. This was proven by the CDC reports on Homosexuality, which did not make the press but which are nevertheless true.

Also, Gay men do contract anal cancer at a greater rate than Heterosexual men, and anal tears do tend to promote greater infection risks in gay men. Lesbians are equally prone to certain types of Cancer and infections that are more common with them than Heterosexual women. Homosexual sex is, in fact, more dangerous than Heterosexual sex, and that is a fact.

It may be a fact you can’t accept, but tis a fact shown to be true by years of Clinical research.

Just as the mental health risks are true even if you deny them or blame them on an intolerant society.

The truth is Homosexuality is a mental illness. Nothing more. 60% of gay men who enter therapy for reasons other than their Sexuality, and never receive treatment for their sexuality, and let me repeat this, never receive treatment for their Sexuality, end up with a reduced or ended same sex attraction upon overcoming their neurosis or anxiety disorder.

Let me repeat this.

60% of all Homosexual men who enter therapy for reasons not pertaining to their Homosexuality, and are treated only for the reasons of anxiety, depression, or neurosis, end up loosing or diminishing their same sex attraction.

60% is a significant figure.

The bottom line is that I can show you research that says this. All you can do is ask if I had a bad same sex relationship and pretend that what I say is hateful.

Well to address that, no, I’ve never had any Homosexual relationships. Likewise, what I’m saying isn’t hateful or ridiculous.

All I am saying is that Homosexuality causes a greater risk of Physical illness, proven by years of medical research, and that it is accompanied by mental health risk that far exceed most other groups, and this cannot be accounted for by merely blaming an intolerant society as you do.

How is this Hateful and ridiculous? How is it hateful and ridiculous to say that such damaging relationships aren’t really loving?

If I truly had a loving relationship, would I be abusive? Would I betray that person? Homosexuality isn’t about Love, its about Narcissism and trying to identify with men somehow.

Also, before you try to say otherwise, I know gay men too, and lesbian women. I’ve also met former Homosexuals. You know, the lot you lot seem to like to mock and degrade when your not pretending they don’t exist. Somehow Ex-Gays are treated as either liars who where never gay, really bisexual, or liars who are still gay.
But they exist too.

Since people have been shown to leave the Homosexual lifestyle, and since they have been shown to be happier and more fulfilled when they left, even if they where in a tolerant society witch accepted their Sexual preference, oops, orientation, I find it difficult to believe that you have a case to really support your own claims.

You have asked now twice if I think things through, for example. Actually, you only asked once, the second time you asserted I didn’t by demanding that I do, as if I’ve never thought anything through.

Your claims of how hateful I am simply because I disagree , and your own blog enters which spew nothing but hatred against those how dare go against your own dogma about the gay lifestyle, and your distortion of Christian beliefs designed to somehow shame us, leaves you with no credibility to stand upon.

You say I am hateful, what about your own words? What about your claim that I don’t think things through as if the only conclusion any thinking person would have are yours? What about your unkind remarks toward Iris Robinson? What about your unkind remarks toward Christians in general? What about your flagrant attack son my character here? Your clearly arguing form emotion and not reason.

So by all means make more insults to issue against me, but the fact remains, Homosexuality is a changeable state, and comes with mental and physical health risks.

Even if the Homosexual is fully accepted by his community, and doesn’t encounter hostility or even criticism for his lifestyle, even IF he NEVER encounters the evil dread Homophobic bigot like me who says what he does its wrong and wins universal approval of his Actions, as is seen in some European communities, such as in some in Sweden, he is STILL at a greater risk for Suicide, depression, and anxiety disorders. This is Irrespective of the claim of not conforming to social norms and is not the result of intolerance.

For a psychology student you make a totally unfounded and surprisingly unscientific claim. Legal norms hardly parallel societal or community norms at the same pace. On anything. Never have never will. Also you’re comparing overall groups with overall groups, state-by-state, which is not only mostly meaningless, given the number of differing variables state-by-state, but the stats will differ in reliability state-by-state. It’s rare for people to self-disclose sexual orientation in surveys, so the results can only be a guess at best if you’re looking for a picture which interests you.

You, sir, are simply being dishonest if you saddle the mental health problems noted in Homosexuals on intolerance. The intolerant norms set by intolerant people do not exist in communities that accept Homosexuality as natural, normal, and healthy and yet we still see the same patterns of depression, anxiety, and suicide.

There are NO intolerant norms in Sweden, Holland, San Francisco? Your claim to be a psychology student, yet come up with answers like this, which can be disproved just by asking people in the street! Or maybe you have a study?

Homosexuality is not about love, and Christians aren’t Hypocrites for opposing it, nor is intolerance the reason for the mental health crisis’s that are frequent in Homosexuals.

Again you claim not to be homophobic yet spout ignorant nonsense rather than an argument. I’ve submitted my anecdotal evidence, which given my sexual orientation is pretty reliable. If you choose to ignore it don’t then be surprised to be called ignorant.

As for saying I refuse to accept the facts, another end of the whole claim that I don’t think things through and just believe things, the facts remain. Even though Heterosexuals also contract STD’s, the truth is that Homosexuals are at a significantly higher risk for STD’s. This was proven by the CDC reports on Homosexuality, which did not make the press but which are nevertheless true.

SOME are, SOME aren’t. Please tell me you’re aware of the skyrocketing levels of STI infections in heterosexual young people. If you are you then have to accept that some subgroups are getting some STIs more than others, and it breaks down by gender, sexual orientation, social class and other variables. No, you haven’t thought it through if you haven’t reached this conclusion.

Also, Gay men do contract anal cancer at a greater rate than Heterosexual men, and anal tears do tend to promote greater infection risks in gay men. Lesbians are equally prone to certain types of Cancer and infections that are more common with them than Heterosexual women. Homosexual sex is, in fact, more dangerous than Heterosexual sex, and that is a fact.

Anal cancer eh? Back to the old favourite that all gay men are fucking all the time. Do you know this somehow to be true? You present so much supposition as proven fact, you’re either pig ignorant or must have some specific experience, as I said in my previous reply.

It may be a fact you can’t accept, but tis a fact shown to be true by years of Clinical research.

None of which you can cite. And I’d wager most of which you can cite either disproves your argument if looked at rationally or is flawed, which the study I cited most certainly is.

The truth is Homosexuality is a mental illness. Nothing more. 60% of gay men who enter therapy for reasons other than their Sexuality, and never receive treatment for their sexuality, and let me repeat this, never receive treatment for their Sexuality, end up with a reduced or ended same sex attraction upon overcoming their neurosis or anxiety disorder.

Balderdash. Prove it. Prove then that it’s a uniform, meaningful phenomena. You can’t any more than you’re able to cite where you got that 60% per cent from, for fear of showing the way you misrepresent things.

The bottom line is that I can show you research that says this.

But you can’t.

Likewise, what I’m saying isn’t hateful or ridiculous.

Keep telling yourself that. Hate and ridiculousness can be empirically measured, unlike Iris’ ‘Word of God’ (which you’re not using to defend your position, which is kind of revealing).

How is this Hateful and ridiculous? How is it hateful and ridiculous to say that such damaging relationships aren’t really loving?

Because you can’t substantiate it. Because you’re basing an entire argument on a flawed, bigoted and nasty presumption.

If I truly had a loving relationship, would I be abusive? Would I betray that person? Homosexuality isn’t about Love, its about Narcissism and trying to identify with men somehow.

Again, you claim not to be homophobic, yet imply that gay relationships are abusive and founded on betrayal and narcisism. Are you aware of the number of overweight gay people there are? The number who aren’t stereotypically pretty? REALLY? And you equally can’t substantiate the garbage about abuse and betrayal – that’s part of the human condition wherever it happens. There are nice people and not so nice people. Has a gay man betrayed you in the past? Again – pig ignorant or have had a bad experience.

Since people have been shown to leave the Homosexual lifestyle, and since they have been shown to be happier and more fulfilled when they left, even if they where in a tolerant society witch accepted their Sexual preference, oops, orientation, I find it difficult to believe that you have a case to really support your own claims.

You have to prove that comfort in ‘belonging’ to an intolerant, inflexible, unforgiving community (for it is they who inflict this ex-gay abuse on people) is anything other than transitory. Of course it may be satisfying for some – true homogeneity doesn’t exist in nature. But there is equal evidence of the opposite – that it is cruel brainwashing which simply doesn’t last and ruins lives.

You say I am hateful, what about your own words? What about your claim that I don’t think things through as if the only conclusion any thinking person would have are yours? What about your unkind remarks toward Iris Robinson? What about your unkind remarks toward Christians in general? What about your flagrant attack son my character here? Your clearly arguing form emotion and not reason.

That argument itself follows from a misrepresentation.
a) I have attacked Iris Robinson for outrageous bigotry, which for a politician in the 21st century is outrageous and ‘abominable’. Don’t try to argue that all ideas are equal and equally deserving of tolerance – that moral relativism is bananas.
b) I have never attacked Christians in general, but hey you seem to be a hardline theist, and I have freely attacked them.

Cosmodaddy, why do you feel compelled to lie abotu me and say I hate gay people , simply because I oppose Homosexuality?

You’re not homophobic, you just practice it eh? People who are objectively wrong rarely appreciate it being drawn to their attention, and I’m not surprised you don’t either. Add the inherently confrontational nature of the web, and who knows, there may be some common ground somewhere. But be aware your ideas ARE unscientific (misrepresenting stats and studies to fit your flawed, bigoted attitude), ignorant (my evidence to the contrary would break your argument so you simply ignore it) and downright mean (homosexuality not being about love demeans my and the legion of other successful, happy and loving same-sex relationships I know).

I made no unfounded and unscientific statements. Everything I’ve said is readily available to anyone in University libraries, and is found in reading contemporary research on the matter of Homosexuality.

On the other hand, you made several unfounded claims, one of which is that I was addressing legal customs, when I wasn’t. Often the culture exhibits pro-Homosexual stances long before legal recognition kicks in, and I was actually addressing cultural environment, not legal environment, such as in Sweden’s larger cities.

But you simply want to pretend all the mental health problems we note in Homosexuals stem form Homophobia as its easier for you to accept that than look at the alternative, which is that Homosexuality itself can be an indicator of a Mental health problem.

Should I look up the names of some of the reports?

No, Cosmodaddy, you simply assume I am looking only at legal culture, when I’m looking at actual culture.

Also, hatred cannot be empirically measured, so your wrong.

Incedentlaly, my speech here has been respectful and polite, not hateful. The only reason you find what I say hateful is because it disagrees with the positions you hold. But is disagreement really the same as hatred?

But you must say I hate Homosexuals, mustn’t you? You have tied your entire identity into not only being gay, but into being a gay activist and fighting any disagreement. You wish to rewrite the societal moral codes so it includes what you think is best, and this includes Homosexual acceptance. As a result, you must find a reason to silence others who do not agree with you.

This is why you say I am filled with hatred, it is to demonise me, and to render me as some sort of vile person, whose ideas are irrational, without actually examining the content of what I say.

By depicting me as hateful and bigoted, and claiming what I say is unscientific, and unfounded, and then misrepresenting it, like by saying I looked only at legal precedence, you create an image of me that is easy to attack, and one that certainly doesn’t have to be addressed on the terms of what he says.

You have created in me a generic villain.

Research can be found right now, if your really interested, on the CDC website. You can also do a basic google or yahoo search, and find the information readily available,

I’m a bit pressed right now for time, but will give you reports about Homosexuality that support my claims later.

As to your own anecdotal evidence, you claim to is reliable because of your Sexual preference, but need I remind you that your biases will also interfere? You accuse me of biases, after all, why would a gay man be excepted? Why should I trust your personal experiences when they are filtered through a mind I find unreliable?

I say this knowing other gay men who I’d much rather converse on this topic with, since they’d be far more fair minded than our being.

You see, your not just gay, your entire personal drive is motivated by your need to enforce your gay identity and to project on everyone else your own moral acceptance of it, and likely other things.

Somehow I doubt this would enable a fair assessment of daily life.

If a Homosexual and Heterosexual are in a Debate, over these sorts of issues, you will unfailingly say the Homosexual is right and think his arguments brilliant, simply because you already agree. Much like a Richard Dawkins fan will defend Richard Dawkins’s debated, articles, and books, even when they make no real since at all.

For the Dawkinsites, its because they need Dawkins to be right and for you its because you need the gay activist to be right.

The same is likely true of events. If a gay man is insulted by a straight one you’d see that as worse that a straight man being insulted by a gay one, over their sexual identity.

You will claim no doubt that this is not the case, but I’d much rather see you in action before Believe a self assessment, especially in light of your performance here.

And, given the amount of vitriol you have on me and how often you challenge me, insinuating that I’m not a real Psychology student, and that I’m filled with hatred, and that I’m somehow not a real Christian, I doubt that serious consideration should be awarded you in such self-ennobling statements as how you are tolerant and fair minded.

You are free of course to issue such a statement, I won’t mind, but it won’t mean a thing whilst you engage in profanity-laced insults aimed at those who disagree with you.

But before I spend time digging up the papers, only to see the usual pattern emerge of you dismissing them out of hand as rationally flawed, even without reading them, because of your A Priori assessment of them, I will give you this last chance to respond to me in a civilised way and show some willingness to listen.

Also, I’m not using scriptural quotes to defend my position because such needn’t come up. Irish Robinson has done this already and I’m sure the quotes both form the Old and New testament are well known to you. But, we weren’t even initially discussing the morality of Homosexuality in that regard, and my central defence was of Iris Robinson’s freedom of speech. Why should I cite endless scripture for that? it’s not about proving its Biblically wrong, but that can come up.

Why, indeed, ought I even for the rest, since you wouldn’t be bothered to read such arguments anyway, nor would it matter since you’d likely offer the usual distortions to render them somehow “Misunderstood” and of course the “Real “ interpretation would favour your own position. So whats the use?

Besides, Aquinas used his Logic form Aristotle and Lewis his plain common since, to defend what the read in the Bible, without overtly quoting it endlessly, it’s not like one needs to quote scripture t stand on Scriptural principles and repeat what the Scripture has to say.

If I want to prove the Scriptures have relevance and meaning to a modern world, I’d have to explain the principles independently anyway, wouldn’t I?

So what is so revealed by such statements of mine? What is instead revealed is your subversive tendencies, and your need to attempt to undermine someone else by degrading them.

The same is sued when you offered the claim that I had had a past same sex relationship that went bad. You had no evidence for such a claim, and in fact such a claim is false. You just said it to give yourself a vehicle for rendering me as a self hating gay, or as someone who hates gays because of a bad personal experience, and thus as a mean to sidestep what I actually say.

The same is true here, on your comments about how revealing it is that I’ve not cited Scripture.

But your methods are well known to me and I can cast ligt onto these works of Darkness.

And, that’s a Biblical reference by the way.

As to the rest, you miss the point. Homosexual relationships stem from a deep rooted Neurosis, in which the person seeks ot identify with other men somehow, and also turns inward into a form fo self love. He wants a sort of copy of himself that can affirm his manhood, or the approval of other men. One of the two is the cause of the bulk of Homosexual cases in existence.

This is not love, this is selfishness or a confused since of personal identification, which is ovary reliant on others, and turned sexual.

And, just like an abusive relationship or one that betrayal has occurred in, love , if it ever exited at all in such a relationship, is still subsumed, and the principles of Love where not the binding reason for it.

An abusive man may or may not Love his wife, but he stays with her because he can control her. The purpose of the abuse is to feel power over someone else and often to takeout frustrations one feels elsewhere. It makes the abuser feel powerful to abuse his victim as the victim submits, and the victim often embodies the objects of the abusers frustrations and fears, or else is simply conveniently used as a subject to the abuser so the abuser can feel he has power over them.

The relationships are similar in that Love is not the basis of the relationship and the Actions that transpire.

I’m sorry that you have a hard time seeing this point, but this is why I also do not post the reports readily, as you likely won’t read them, or else claim hey where written by Homophobes, or claim they have rational flaws, all to avoid the real topic. You won’t find legitimate criticism in the reports, just the usual drafted and prewritten arguments.

As fo your unkind words about Ex Gays, repeating the mantras of how its abuse and brainwashing, I have to ask you to do the same as you ask me. Of coruse you likely will just post propoganda but…
I want you to prove that it is an intolerant society that inflicts this upon others. I want you to show me that it is abuse. I want you to show me that its brainwashing. I want real research and data about this.

I want you to show me that Ex Gays do not exist, that those that do are either relying to fit into an intolerant society or else brainwashed, and that its abuse. I doubt you can, not without relying on sites designed ot promote your point of view and bash ex gays.

Also, what exactly is a “Hard-line Theist”? A Theist is simply someone who believes God exists. There is no “Hard line” to this.

As to your statements about me, my statements are supported by the current scientific research, including recent research in Berkley California, you have no evidence that I misrepresent any statistics or studies to fit anything, you just accuse me of that freely, and not really mean. I have presented no malice. You see Malice, though, because what I say threatens you on an emotional level because you are confronted with the possibility that you are wrong, can change, and thus are liable to moral question.

Also, you have presented no evidence that shatters anything I’ve said. All you have done is present opinions and suppositions about my intellectual and academic capacity and attacked my Christianity.

Homosexual relationships stem from a deep rooted Neurosis, in which the person seeks ot identify with other men somehow, and also turns inward into a form fo self love. He wants a sort of copy of himself that can affirm his manhood, or the approval of other men. One of the two is the cause of the bulk of Homosexual cases in existence.

This is not love, this is selfishness or a confused since of personal identification, which is ovary reliant on others, and turned sexual.

And, just like an abusive relationship or one that betrayal has occurred in, love , if it ever exited at all in such a relationship, is still subsumed, and the principles of Love where not the binding reason for it.

You do realise that there isn’t a single reputable psychologist in the world who believes any of that nonsense. Not one. Every major psychological body has moved on from that nonsense – the British Psychological Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the American Psychological Association; they all left it decades ago:

Clinical psychologists and other health professionals recognise and value the full range of heterosexual, lesbian, gay and transgender sexual orientations. Clinical psychologists do not view these forms of sexual preferences as ‘disorders’ and do not see an individual’s sexual orientations as something that can or should be changed. We know of no recognised or accredited forms of ‘psychiatric counselling’ that can help people ‘turn round’.

Of course you’ll ignore this or say that everyone else is wrong but you. But look at the way society is moving – to say you’re a minority is an understatement. You don’t even have the courage of a true homophobe to admit your so-called psychological treatises are founded in bigoted false positives (or negatives). You’re an intellectual coward.

You wish to rewrite the societal moral codes so it includes what you think is best, and this includes Homosexual acceptance. As a result, you must find a reason to silence others who do not agree with you.

I think you’ll find Western societal moral codes, mainstream ones at least, accept homosexuality. And lost in that rant is a realisation that I’m not trying to silence anyone who thinks that shouldn’t be the case – in your case I’m merely reflecting reality against your skewed argument to see if you care about the failings in your perception of other human beings. You clearly don’t, which is your right, and I fully accept that you’re the one who is diminished because of it.

It’s commonly understood that we no longer attack people for difference, as long as that difference isn’t to anyone’s detriment, which homosexuality is not. You have had a fun time trying to shoehorn statistics into a false negative, you’ve ignored my and others’ experience (which of course is biased, are you stupid?), but look who’s really losing the argument here. The law isn’t behind you, professional bodies aren’t behind you (if you really are a student you’ll have a fun time getting accreditation), mainstream society isn’t behind you either. Of course you’ll say mainstream society is wrong and ungodly. I anxiously await the thunderbolts from high, plagues and floods to prove you right.

You’ve ignored the thrust of what I said, which is what I anticipated, and that’s a shame. The world is not as you want it to be, which is also a shame. I regret that people like you hate people like me, but it’s a diverse place, I admit. Just remember that intolerance of intolerance isn’t an actual or moral crime – it’s common sense. Enjoy your glass house.

Cosmodaddy, your continual reliance on insulting me, and of course on lying about me, do not make you right.

I’m not an intellectual coward, and my triteness aren’t base don Bigoted false positives or negatives. How can you even justify this comment though since I’ve yet to even show you my sources? Aren’t’ you just assuming that my reports are form Homophobic Bigots making false claims? In turn, isn’t this assumptions itself rooted in your own stereotyping? No, Cosmodaddy, my statements are rooted only in an honest examination of the truth, and the reports I rely upon are Science that comes from institutions that would more than likely welcome you and eschew me. Institutions like Berkley University.

Last year they ran an experiment on rams who only mounted other Rams, and by giving them hormonal treatments got them to mount ewes. This was seen as a threat to the gay community, and the experiments where then halted.

Which brings up a good point. You seem to think that no respectable psychologist anywhere would agree with me. I know that this is not so, and numerous respected Psychologist do, in fact, maintain positions similar to my own. What you really mean is that since they hold positions like mine you, and others like you, would do your best to make sure hey are seen as quacks even if they hold Ph.D’s from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, or any other institution, and no matter what their body of research over the last few decades has been.

Or you’d simply ignore them and pretend they don’t exist, much like former Homosexuals who left behind your lifestyle are ignored and marginalized as if they do not exist. Incidentally, quoting the Diagnostic Manual form the APA or official positions form the British Psychological Association doesn’t go very far. You commit the same logical fallacy in it as everyone else who uses this. Namely you assume that because the institutions hold those position officially, its base don science and must be true, and all Psychologists in those institutions agree, and thus all Psychologists the world over agree.

This is, of course, not true, but it’s a useful smokescreen for you to use since most people do not question it that much. However, as I said, I know ell enough about the institutions and their positions, and how they where arrived at via political maundering and social agendas. You can say that what I just said is Bigoted and comes form Homophobes, but come off it, that’s not an argument.

The truth is that even within the APA, the official party line about Sexual Orientation being fixed and immutable is challenged by numerous members, and even Elliot Spitzer, who lead the campaign to have it removed from the Diagnostic Manual here in the States, now thinks that there is evidence that change is possible. He is a respected Psychologist by the way.

Earlier this year, in 2008, they wanted to hold a conference on Causes of Homosexuality and rather or not it was reversible. Such a conference would even include V. Gene Robinson in appearance.

However, owing to nice, open minded people lie you, who shouted bloody murder about the prospect of honest evaluation of the evidence and counterviews, the APA shut down the conference.

Note, it wasn’t run by Homophobes who had no respect in the Psychological field, it was run by respected Psychologists and included people of a range of views and beliefs.

It was shut down soley because it challenged the dogma that Homosexuality was innate and unchangeable and threatened the gay rights political campaigns that are often rooted in that claim.

No, Cosmodaddy, those institutions did not pass up what I said because of Science, and reason, and because what I say is Nonsense, they passed it up because people like you got organised, and loud, and because the counter-cultural hippies who here young students at the time accepted it and ran with it.
Political pressure, not science, won those originations over, and political correctness, not reason, holds everything in check now.

Bullies shut down the opposition to the claims, and make sure Homosexuality wins the official sanction and approval of such organisations, in order to further their own end of social reengineering and political gain. The goal of Homosexual lobby groups is, after all, complete, and mandatory, acceptance of Homosexuality, something they are quiet willing to impose by force.

The Organisations are also filled in their Hierarchies with liberal social activists, who seek to help implement their own agendas as well, and who accord with these designs.

And make no mistake, Scientists are not free of Bias and are not dispassionate searchers for the truth, and are quiet capable of making decisions based upon ideologies and seeing only what they wish to see. For evidence look no further than Richard Dawkins.

But even so, the APA and BPA and other organisations do host those with Dissenting voices, who do not agree with the official party line. If they go too far they are silenced by pressure and the screams of gay rights groups shouting how this research is akin to racism or that research is a threat to their civil rights, and who want the quest for truth in Science moulded to reach their ready-made conclusions.

Still, there are many members in each group, and all other Psychological associations, who disagree.

Off the top of my head I can think of only one name, tis late as I write this, however. But the name is a significant one. Eliot Spitzer. Now like a good gay activist you will rip into him and use the fact that he opposes gay adoption to automatically paint him as a Homophobe and ignore everything else he has said or what he did years ago for you. Still, Spitzer is a recognised expert, and a respected Psychologist.

Going back to your lie about me, how am I shoehorning statistics into a false Negative? Shouldn’t you at least wait until I’ve presented the papers before saying they where written by Homophobes and are base don false perceptions and data manipulation?

Of course not, this is a stock argument. You know what your argument against me is before I post anything.

You aren’t going to listen to anything that doesn’t conform to your own bigoted and narrow minded view of things.

You thus know that all real Psychologists say Homosexuality is natural, doesn’t hurt anyone, and innate, and cannot be changed. You also know that anything I say comes form Homophobes and is base don false negatives and false positives.

You know this because you got your arguments in advance, from others who sit about all day creating stock arguments in order to secure their position against attack.

That’s why I left Apologetics, no one cared for the truth, and only argued for their position. They’d build stockpiles of arguments, and if one of their arguments filed kept right on using it till they realised it failed. Then they’d look for a new argument to support their proposition. That’s what your doing here.

You are using a stock argument. The trouble is they are wrong. I’m not shoehorning any statistics into anything. I’m quoting scientific papers. You, on the other hand, want to ignore the truth to justify your own chosen lifestyle. Nothing more.

Now, I’ll present the reports later. Wait till they are presented before you assume their content. As it is now I’m demotivated to present them because you have already shown that you aren’t interested in reading them, only in criticising them, and will criticize them before you even read them as false negatives and false positives.

That shows that you won’t listen to an opposing view, and operate on the A priori assumption that your right, and will use nay argument to support your values.

As a result, you won’t read what is written in the reports, only dismiss them. Still, I’ll present them.

Let me make a few things clear, for fear of them getting lost in the hysteria. Your argument is based on suppositions which are proven falsehoods, backed up by shoehorned statistics and studies taken either out of context or of dubious standard. As with any fundamentalist you can’t abide proven reality and choose to ignore it, as you have on many occasions with me – read back. Iris Robinson also does this – relying on Biblical epithets like ‘abomination’ to back up her bigoted attitudes, rather than either relying on the truth about gay people or picking passages from the Bible which contradict the nastiness. I’ve never understood why people refuse to think for themselves, and even choose not to critically evaluate what they read, but it’s a diverse world.

You know I can’t argue against your fales negatives – it’s why you set the argument up as you do, and it’s now getting circular, so maybe we should give it a rest. Your description of homosexuality (how can someone be a ‘gay activist’ merely by standing up against an attack on who they fundamentally are?) as a pathology isn’t backed up by a single reputable psychological body, and there are no cracks in that position, regardless of your misrepresentations. Your last misrepresentation of the cancelled conference is particularly obvious after only a cursory check, but it’s clear your identity is tied in to your beliefs, and they are a prism through which the world distorts. Belief really is a cancer and it’s a shame you disrespect difference whilst the rest of us are forging ahead.

Have a nice life and remember – intolerance of intolerance is a strength – recasting it as narrow-mindedness shows where the real intolerance lies. It’s never too late to change.

Let me make a few things clear, for fear of them getting lost in the hysteria. Your argument is based on suppositions which are proven falsehoods, backed up by shoehorned statistics and studies taken either out of context or of dubious standard.

Well this just says it all doesn’t it? I’ve not yet presented any of my evidence, and yet you know that its all supposition and proven falsehood, taken from reports that themselves have been taken out of context or are of dubious origin.

And you know this how, Cosmodaddy?

It is entirly your supposition that this is the case, and you are yet proving me correct abou you, and in fact proving the Bible true. It says that fools never listen, and you certinaly arne’t, unless they are told what they want ot hear.

It is acutlaly much more dubious to say that someones evidence is base don falsificaiton and takign things out oof context before htey have oresented them, then it its to make an openign claim, and then prepare a presentaiton thats not yet presented.

You already know that my evkdence is dubious because it contradicts your personal wprld view, and you are simply repeatign the same acucsaitosn you made in your former posts, and these accusatiosn are groudnless.

Nothign is taken tu of context by menand I was acutlaly just gign to present hte names of the reports and let you see them for yorself.

Also, the reports arne’t dubious in origin, as anyone woudl be able to verify who wrote them and what institutions they work for.

Now stop makign asusmptiosn that fit your antasies and acutlaly wait for the evidnece to be rpesented.

You have proven, though, that I needn’t bother iht much evidenc as you won’t look at naythign that contradicts your personally held opinion, and will dismiss it all as out fo context or fabricated.

As with any fundamentalist you can’t abide proven reality and choose to ignore it,

Actually, your the one who won’t veen so much as wait for the evidence I have to be rpesented, before you go about claiming its out fo context or of dubious origins. That alone shows that proiven reality means nothignto you.

Now stop makign this about me and acutlalu wait for the real evidence.

The reality is that Homosexuals, even you, can change if you like, and tat Homosexuality is the result of a Neurosis.

That is the proven reality, one you choose to ignroe to justify your own lifestyle.

as you have on many occasions with me – read back. Iris Robinson also does this – relying on Biblical epithets like ‘abomination’ to back up her bigoted attitudes, rather than either relying on the truth about gay people or picking passages from the Bible which contradict the nastiness.

You earlier accused me of not usign the Bible, and now you say I only rely on bits of it.

Actulaly, I’ve been relyign on reason and Science. But if you want to go withthe Bible, the Bible in several palces condmens Homosexual acts, and even says peopel shoudl repent of them. THis is not nasty, it is a reality of scriptures, and sicnde Science has confirmed that Homosexuality is acutlaly unhealthy, dispite the political support its grnered, the truth is that you and others liek you are ladign a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle.

This may explain your nastiness to me. You are rude, and insulting to me, because you cannot abide anyone critisising your condition, for emotional reasons. Much liek others who ar ein denial of their problem beign a probelm, you need ot lash out at those hwo woudl offer you a differing persoective and demonise them.

I’ve never understood why people refuse to think for themselves, and even choose not to critically evaluate what they read, but it’s a diverse world.

So, let me get this straight. If I do not agree with you I’m not thinkign for myself.

I’m rather tired of beign told by bigoted and shallow people liek you that I don’t think for myself. What gyou relaly mean is that because I disagree with ytou I’ve come tot he wrong conclusion.

Do you think this sort of ridicule shows you to be a ;particulaly moral individual?

You only say I dont think for myself because you want me to soemhow be shwon to be an idipt, who cannto think, and present your ocnclusion as theonly raitonal one. Its an emotional bait that doens’t work.

I do think for myself, and I know full well that your tactic here is nothign but shameless insult.

Thinking for myself is not the smae thing as blind acceptance of Homosexuality.

Incedentlaly critical evaluation fo evidnece doent lead automaticllay to your position either. In fact, you won’t criticlaly evaluate the evicence.

You havent’ even waited till the evidence has been rpesented before condemning it as either ut of context or false and syaign I am showhoign statistics.

How is that critical evaluation?

You alreayd have the ocnclusion in ou rmidn that Homosexuality is safe, normal, and helthy, and thus you automaticllay dismiss as nonsence anythign that contadicts htis claim.

You do nto look at the evidence in a fair, reaosnable way and arne’t usign critical thinkign skills, you in fact refuse to look at he evidence.

SO do not issue this sort of staejent to me, it makes you a hypocrite.

You know I can’t argue against your fales negatives – it’s why you set the argument up as you do, and it’s now getting circular, so maybe we should give it a rest.

You, sir, are a liar.

My arugments aren’t base don false negatives. They are base don modern scientific studies, that you habent’ seen and won’t examien because you refuse to look at naythign that doens’t agree with you.

You don’t think thigns through, you just critisie that which doens’t agree with you, and insult those who challegne your assertions.

If the evidence hasn’t even been rpesented, how can you say youve evaluaed it? How do you knwo tis all false negatives? You don’t, your asusming, and thats very teling.

Your description of homosexuality (how can someone be a ‘gay activist’ merely by standing up against an attack on who they fundamentally are?)

Your not standing up for who you fundamentlaly are by lablign me a fundamentlaist, and syaign I dont htink for myself or criticlaly evaluate the evidence, you are commitign slander.

You also arnet standign uo for who you fundamentlaly are by critisisng evidence thats not been rpesente dby saygn its all false psoitives and false negatives, and taken out of contex or else form dubious soruces. You are makign a presumptive stance on hat the evidnece is that is roote din your own need to make sure everyhtignt hat speaks an oposign voe to the one you hold is demonised.

But you cannot criticlaly evaluate evidence hats nto yet been given, and your a liar if you say you can.

but lying is not hat hard for you, is it COsmodaddy?

Mostly you’ve just spent all this time attakcign me and makign false assertiosn about evidnece you’v enot seen, and then sayign I dont criticlaly evlauate the evidence and dont think for myself. Hypocracy and lies do not win favor , nor do insults.

But I suppose they insulate you form any sort of examination into these matters so you can force things into beign your way.

as a pathology isn’t backed up by a single reputable psychological body, and there are no cracks in that position, regardless of your misrepresentations.

Can you name one time I misrerpesented anything?

Oh wait, you didn’t even let me post evidence before decising tis all false negatives and positives or taken out of context or orm dubiosu soruces. You just knew, psychically, that hey where. Your clarvoyance allowed you to evaluate my evidence befor it was ever posted.

I suppose you knew I was goign to type this as well.

Coem off it, I didnt misrepresent naything, btu you did.

Aain,your a Hypocrite.

Your last misrepresentation of the cancelled conference is particularly obvious after only a cursory check, but it’s clear your identity is tied in to your beliefs, and they are a prism through which the world distorts.

I didnt misrepresent he cancelation of the conference. I know some f the peope who where to be in attendance, persoanlly. Now stop lying about me misrepresentign anything.

Its the gay rights lobby who distorts reality tomake themselves innocent of all wrong.

Belief really is a cancer and it’s a shame you disrespect difference whilst the rest of us are forging ahead.

Beleif is a Cancer? Beleif is anythign you accept as true. The monment you accept that a computer sits on your table you form a beleif.

That is not a cancer.

As to the rest of you forging ahead, stip tryign to demonise and margionalise those who disagree with you, it doens’t shwo that your more civilised to condecend, and the insutls are unwarrented.

Have a nice life and remember – intolerance of intolerance is a strength – recasting it as narrow-mindedness shows where the real intolerance lies. It’s never too late to change.

You arne’t intolerant of intolerance. You are simply inolerant of others who disagree and feel instad that you can mock and degrade them, as if this soemhow proves that they ar einfirior to you.

You need to feel superior to others by insultignt em and castign them in a bad light, and thats just a simply bully tactic.